Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ASSISTED LIVING ASSOCS. OF MOORESTOWN v. MOORESTOW

April 9, 1998

ASSISTED LIVING ASSOCIATES OF MOORESTOWN, L.L.C., LAUREL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN and JANE DOE, Plaintiffs,
v.
MOORESTOWN TOWNSHIP, MOORESTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, and MOORESTOWN TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ORLOFSKY

ORLOFSKY, District Judge:

 Following this Court's grant of a preliminary injunction in this case on March 19, 1998, Defendants, Moorestown Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and Moorestown Township Planning Board, have each moved for reargument pursuant to Rule 7.1(g) of the Local Civil Rules for the District of New Jersey. Moorestown Township has joined in the motion filed by the Planning Board. For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied.

 I. Facts and Procedural History

 The facts underlying this action are set forth in great detail in this Court's opinion granting Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, Assisted Living Assoc. v. Moorestown Township, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3480, F. Supp. , 1998 WL 129956 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 1998), and will not be repeated here. The Court enjoined enforcement of certain sections of Moorestown Ordinance No. 1806-97 against Plaintiffs.

 On April 2, 1998, ten days after I granted the injunction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), Defendants, Moorestown Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "Zoning Board") and Moorestown Township Planning Board (the "Planning Board"), filed motions for reargument. *fn1"

 II. Standard on Motion for Reargument

 Motions for reargument are governed by Rule 7.1(g) of the Local Civil Rules for the District of New Jersey, formerly General Rule 12I. Rule 7.1(g) provides that a party may, "within ten days of the entry of an order or judgment," move for reargument. To support reargument, a moving party must show that dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law were overlooked by the court in reaching its prior decision. See, e.g., Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 623, 1996 WL 912174, *10 (D.N.J. 1996).

 The word "overlooked" is the operative term in the Rule. See Allyn Z. Lite, New Jersey Federal Practice Rules 22 (1998 ed.). Mere disagreement with a decision of the district court should normally be raised through the appellate process and is inappropriate on a motion for reargument. See Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of N. Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 859 n.8 (D.N.J. 1992), aff'd mem., 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994); G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990) ("A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.") (quotation omitted); Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988). The Court will only entertain such a motion where the overlooked matters, if considered by the Court, might reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion. See, e.g., Pittston Co. v. Sedgwick James of New York, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 915 (D.N.J. 1997); Panna v. Firstrust Sav. Bank, 760 F. Supp. 432, 435 (D.N.J. 1991); Pelham v. United States, 661 F. Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J. 1987).

 III. Discussion

 In support of its motions for reargument, the Planning Board has raised three factual or legal issues which, it contends, were overlooked by the Court. The Zoning Board raises an additional issue. I address them seriatim, and find all of the arguments advanced by the Planning and Zoning Boards to be without merit.

 A. Lynch Affidavit

 The Planning Board argues that reargument is warranted because I overlooked the opinion of its expert, John J. Lynch. See Certification of John J. Lynch (dated Nov. 20, 1997), Exh. A (Planning Report (dated Nov. 1997)) (hereinafter Lynch Report). I did not overlook his report. I specifically considered the Lynch Report, and cited it in the Opinion. See Assisted Living, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3480, 1998 WL 129956 at *2. I did not rely on it for any meaningful factual proposition because the Report was deserving of little weight.

 First, the Lynch Report is articulated in the form of a legal conclusion which Lynch is simply not competent to make. Specifically, the intention of the Lynch Report is:

 
to demonstrate that the Township of Moorestown has made reasonable accommodations for a variety of senior citizen and handicapped housing, including assisted living facilities; [and] that the Township has not discriminated against persons with handicaps or disabilities or those frail elderly in need ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.